This decision became final on 16 April, when the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 18.

La High Court rejeta sa demande.

The details were, however, decisive for the lodging of an appeal with the Military Administrative High Court.

It was observed that the otherwise competent Budapest High Court’s workload was excessive.

and remitted to the High Court.

(b)    Appeal on points of law before the High Court 18 .   On 23   March 2016 the High Court upheld the appellate court’s conclusions.

On 10 March 1992 the High Court ordered discovery on a consent basis.

    On 18 December 2013 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law with the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the High Specialised Court”).

        The High Court found that the applicant had committed an aggravated fraud in that he had caused a particularly serious damage (besonders großer Schaden) within the

In its judgment the High Court stated inter alia: “[The High Court agrees] that the Convention on Human Rights cannot be considered infringed.

Accordingly his statement during the City Court trial was read out during the High Court trial.

(iv)     The Higher Administrative Court : The Higher Administrative Court had been vested with powers to declare the decisions of the HCJ and the Parliament unlawful without being able to quash

Première présidence __________ Odech Pourvoi n° : Q 24-20.717 Demandeur(s) : la société Vindemia services et autre Avocat(s) : la SARL Ortscheidt Défendeur(s) : la société High

By the final decision of 31   March 2015, of which the applicant was informed on 2   April   2015, the Higher Administrative Court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s cassation

The High Court reserved judgment as regards Defendants 2 and 3.

Before the High Court the applicant as well as four witnesses were heard.

During their marriage they were close friends with several judges of the Kecskemét High Court.

On 4 April 2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters held the hearing in the criminal case against the applicant in her and her representative’s absence, but in the presence of a

The applicant was acquitted in June 1994 by Eidsivating High Court ( lagmannsrett ).